No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Staten Island Care Center

200 Lafayette Avenue, Staten Island, NY 10301 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 300 certified beds · (718) 448-9000 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (718) 448-9000 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse-prevention, restraint, or reporting citation — no harm found (F0609) — cited Feb 2022
Insights

This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
  • no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
  • lower-than-typical staff turnover (23% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
Worth asking about
  • it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
  • its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
  • its last standard health inspection was over 2 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions

One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.

A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.

5/5
CMS overall
5 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 4 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 2 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 5 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
1/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
Pharmacy
121 Lafayette Ave · (718) 524-7099 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
71 Lafayette Ave · (718) 876-7956 · Call to confirm hours
Park
Harvard Ave · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Overall quality measures 5 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 5 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 5 of 5

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 4 to 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.

Overall rating5★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased16.1%14.1%15.4%typical
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight8.1%5.8%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.2%0.5%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.8%1.3%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms96.5%19.5%6.5%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.2%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury2.1%3.1%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened19.4%12.5%16.1%worse
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication20.7%13.2%18.9%typical
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine98.2%95.3%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers3.3%6.5%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control6.2%19.5%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table28.8%13.7%17.1%worse
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.9%1.2%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine77.4%78.8%79.4%typical
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission15.5%20.6%22.6%better
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit3.3%9.6%12.0%better
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days1.151.701.67better
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days0.441.361.80better

On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.

§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.

CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.

Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital

Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.

30.3% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 346 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

30.3%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
10.4%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
71.0%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.40U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.21hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.17hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.02hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 71.0% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 224 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.40 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 69% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 14% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.

See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF30.3%CMS range 25.7–34.051.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024worse than U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF10.4%CMS range 8.1–12.610.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge71.0%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge61.2%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge71.4%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified93.7%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting95.1%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge98.4%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay0.6%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened0.3%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization6.2%CMS range 4.0–9.27.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.881.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS makes no comparison for this measure

From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.

Staffing

0.34
RN hours/ resident / day
0.66
LPN hours/ resident / day
1.70
Aide hours/ resident / day
2.70
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.21
RN hoursweekends
23.3%
Total nursing turnover
30.4%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 300 beds and averages 291.8 residents a day — about 97% occupied, or roughly 8 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 2.70 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.34 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.70 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.57 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 2.76 on weekdays — 7% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.39 to 0.21 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 23% is below the national median of 45%.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

4
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2024-03-21)
4
at the previous standard inspection (2022-02-04)

Deficiencies are unchanged from the previous inspection. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.

10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Potential for harm · E2024-03-21 · tag F0577 — pattern
    Allow residents to easily view the nursing home's survey results and communicate with advocate agencies.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews conducted during the Recertification survey from 03/14/2024-03/21/2024, the facility did not ensure that the survey results were posted in a place readily accessible to residents, visitors, or other individuals, where individuals wishing to examine survey results do not have to ask to see them. Specifically, the survey results were in a binder at sitting height at the front desk facing towards the inside area of the security desk and were not readily accessible for review. The finding is: The facility policy and procedure titled Survey Results reviewed on 01/08/2024 documented that it is the policy of the facility to post all survey results at the front desk for all residents and visitors to view. Signs are posted throughout the facility indicating where the results can be found. On 03/14/2024 between 09:20 AM and 11:37AM, the facility lobby and all 5 units were observed. In the lobby there was a sign posted opposite the administrative office stating, Please be advised the New York State Department of Health survey results…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-03-21 · tag F0645 — isolated
    PASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews during the Recertification survey from 3/14/24 to 3/21/24, the facility did not ensure that a complete preadmission screening for individuals with a mental disorder was conducted. Specifically, the SCREEN DOH 695 form was incomplete and a determination of a resident's need for Level II services had not been documented. This was evident for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #244) reviewed for Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) out of 38 sampled residents. The finding is: Resident #244 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Non-Alzheimer's Dementia, Anxiety Disorder, Depression, Bipolar Disorder. The Annual Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented resident was cognitively intact and that Antipsychotics were received on a routine basis only. The admission Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented that Resident #244 had not been evaluated by Level II Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR). The Comprehensive Care Plan (CCP) for…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-03-21 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — isolated
    Provide activities to meet all resident's needs.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during the Recertification survey from 3/14/2024 to 3/21/2024, the facility did not ensure an ongoing activities program was provided to meet the interests of and support the physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of the resident. This was evident for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #53) reviewed for Activities out of 38 total sampled residents. Specifically, Resident #53, a resident with severely impaired cognition, was observed for extended periods of time without meaningful activities, and there was no activity plan to provide activities to the resident while in their room. The findings are: The facility policy and procedure reviewed 1/25/24 titled Activities On Unit Programming and House Wide Activities documented an individual program is designed for each unit, composed of leisure education, social recreation, and therapeutic interventions reflecting the interests and needs of the unit's population. This includes the Subacute Unit and Dementia…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-03-21 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolated
    Provide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews conducted during the Recertification/complaints survey from 3/14/24 to 3/21/24, the facility did not ensure that a resident with limited range of motion received appropriate treatment and services to increase range of motion and/or to prevent further decrease in range of motion. Specifically, a resident was not provided with handrolls and a splint device as ordered by the physician. This was evident for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #218) reviewed for Position/Mobility out of 38 sampled residents. The findings are: The facility's Policy and Procedure titled Adaptive devices dated 03/30/2014, last updated 01/15/2024, documented that Licensed Nurse/Certified Nursing Assistant ensures that device is in place in accordance with plan of care and notifies nurse manager/nurse if resident refuses to use the device. Resident #218 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included Peripheral Vascular Disease, Other Fracture, Cerebrovascular Accident, and…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2022-02-04 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — pattern
    Keep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, records review and staff interview during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that each resident's right to privacy and confidentiality of his or her personal and medical records was maintained. Specifically, the licensed nurse left an open laptop logged into a resident's electronic medical record (EMR) (Resident #141) and medication blister pack (Resident #83 and Resident #140) unattended, on top of the medication cart, in the hallway, exposing personal health information. This was evident for 3 of 4 residents reviewed for privacy (Resident #141, #140 and #83) on 1 of 5 units (Unit 2). The findings are: The policy and procedure for Health Information Privacy and Accountability ACT (HIPAA) dated 10/1/16 and revised date 12/1/21 documented that it is the policy of the facility to protect the privacy of our residents in the person and as related to their personal health information. To maintain compliance with HIPPA law enacted in 4/13/03 to protect privacy of health care information and privacy of the resident. Information can be gathered at…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2022-02-04 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and staff interviews during the Recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that infection prevention control practices were followed to help prevent the spread, development, and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Specifically, The facility staff did not follow infection control guidelines while handling clean and soiled linen to prevent the spread of infection; This was evident for 1 of 5 units observed for infection control (unit 5 and unit 1). The findings are: 1) The Infection Control: Safe handling of linen policy dated 6/12/18 last reviewed on 11/9/21 documented that it is the policy of the facility to ensure that all personnel must handle, store, process, and transport linens so as to prevent the spread of infection. Proper handling of linen is required throughout the facility. Nursing staff may take the linen and place on portable linen carts on the unit and must remain covered. At no time should the cover remain open. Care must be taken…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2022-02-04 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolated
    Timely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review conducted during a recertification survey (U53P11) and facility reported incident (FRI) complaint investigation (NY00251863) completed on 2/04/2022, the facility did not ensure all alleged violations involving abuse were reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made to the State Survey Agency. Specifically, the facility did not report an incident where a resident was noted with a bleeding nose after they were found in another resident's room and this incident occurred on 01/30/2020 at 3:16 PM and was reported to NYSDOH on 01/31/2020 at 04:46 PM. Additionally, a resident was injured by the actions of another resident that occurred on 3/30/2021 at 04:00AM and reported to NYSDOH until 3/30/3021 at 06:37PM. This was evident for 3 of 6 residents reviewed for Abuse (Resident #19, Resident # 415 and Resident # 416). The finding is: The facility policy and procedure titled Abuse, Mistreatment, Neglect, Exploitation and Misappropriation of Resident's…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2022-02-04 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — isolated
    Dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based upon observation, interview and record review during the recertification survey, the facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. Specifically, a garbage container were observed being transported without a cover. The findings are: Policy & Procedure titled Garbage Disposal last review date 11/17/21, documents, It is the policy of [NAME] Island Care Center to ensure that all garbage is handled in a manner which maintains the cleanliness of the facility, maintain infection control and maintain dignity and privacy of items disposed. General Information: All garbage is transported from the location obtained directly to the trash compactor in a covered bin. On 02/01/22 at 11:13AM a Dietary Aide was observed bringing a large garbage container off the elevator to take outside to the dumpster and back down to the kitchen empty. The garbage container was not covered traveling in either direction. On 2/1/22 at 11:17AM the Dietary Aide was interviewed and stated, I am trained to put a cover on the garbage…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2019-06-27 · tag F0641 — isolated
    Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews the facility did not ensure that the Minimum Data Set (MDS) accurately reflected the status of the resident. Specifically, Resident #212 had three (3) consecutive MDS document a diagnosis of Schizophrenia. However, there was no corroborating documentation in the resident's medical record supporting this diagnosis. This was evident for 1 out of 35 sampled residents. The finding is: Resident #212 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, generalized Anxiety, Depression and Peripheral Vascular Disease. The medical record was reviewed and the following was documented: The Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASSR) dated 4/12/18. was reviewed and documented: No dementia diagnosis, no serious mental illness and no Level II referrals were indicated. The Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] in Section I, Active diagnoses: Psychiatric/Mood disorder the diagnosis: Schizophrenia was documented. The Annual MDS dated [DATE] in…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-06-27 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interviews during the re-certification survey, the facility did not ensure infection control practices were maintained to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Specifically, a housekeeper was observed exiting the room of Resident #115 who is on contact precautions for Acinetobacter Baumani without wearing personal protective equipment (PPE). He was mopping the floor. The same housekeeper was also observed using the same mop to clean the room of Resident #149. This deficient practice was observed for one housekeeping employee. The finding is. The facility policy and procedure titled, Isolation Procedure (Dated 05/29/18) was reviewed and documented the following. The steps that must be followed by the housekeeper include, check type of isolation, prepare to enter the room by putting on gown, disposable mask, and latex gloves. When preparing to leave room, place wet mop in red plastic trash bags. As defined in the federal…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
  • Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
  • State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to EXCELSIOR CARE GROUP — 33 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 5 of 52.5+2.5 vs chain
Health inspection 4 of 52.3+1.7 vs chain
Staffing 2 of 52.3-0.3 vs chain
Quality measures 5 of 54.2+0.8 vs chain
The other 32 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.5★, per CMS)
1 of 5Ambassador Healthcare At College ParkFort Myers, FL 1 of 5Briarcliff Manor Center For Rehab And Nursing CareBriarcliff Manor, NY 1 of 5Charlotte Bay Rehab And Care CenterPort Charlotte, FL 1 of 5Live Oak Healthcare And Rehabilitation CenterLive Oak, FL 1 of 5Melbourne Healthcare And Rehabilitation CenterMelbourne, FL 1 of 5River Front Rehabilitation And Healthcare CenterPennsauken, NJ 1 of 5Space Coast Healthcare And Rehabilitation CenterMerritt Island, FL 1 of 5West Delray Nursing & Rehab CenterDelray Beach, FL 2 of 5Alliance Care Rehabilitation And Nursing CenterIrvington, NJ 2 of 5Azure Shores RehabMiami, FL 2 of 5Beach Breeze Rehab And Care CenterWest Palm Beach, FL 2 of 5Boca Circle Rehabilitation CenterBoca Raton, FL 2 of 5Breezy Hills Rehab And Care CenterLakeland, FL 2 of 5Charming Lakes RehabLakeland, FL 2 of 5Lake City Healthcare And Rehabilitation CenterLake City, FL 2 of 5Lake Eustis Healthcare And Rehabilitation CenterEustis, FL 2 of 5Seagate Rehabilitation And Nursing CenterBrooklyn, NY 2 of 5West Volusia Healthcare And Rehabilitation CenterDeltona, FL 2 of 5Yamato Nursing And Rehabilitation CenterBoca Raton, FL 3 of 5Arnold Walter Nursing & Rehabilitation CenterHazlet, NJ 3 of 5Heartland Nursing & Rehab CenterBoynton Beach, FL 3 of 5Nassau Rehabilitation & Nursing CenterHempstead, NY 3 of 5Palm Beach Nursing CenterLake Worth, FL 3 of 5Throgs Neck Rehabilitation & Nursing CenterBronx, NY 4 of 5Acclaim Rehabilitation And Nursing CenterJersey City, NJ 4 of 5Adroit Care Rehabilitation And Nursing CenterRahway, NJ 4 of 5Anchor Care and Rehabilitation CenterHazlet, NJ 4 of 5Atrium Center for Rehabilitation and NursingBrooklyn, NY 4 of 5Isles Of Boynton Nursing And Rehab CenterBoynton Beach, FL 4 of 5Sun Harbor HealthcarePort Charlotte, FL 4 of 5Victoria Crossing Rehabilitation CenterBrandon, FL 5 of 5Cypress Garden Center for Nursing and RehabilitatiFlushing, NY

A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleShareSince
LEIFER, CONSTANCEIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF91%since 01/01/2015
LEIFER, JOELIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF9%since 01/01/2015
STEINBERG, MOSHEIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 07/12/2019
STERN, SAMUELIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 01/01/2017
EXCELSIOR CARE GROUPOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 07/21/2019
BERGMAN, AKIVAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 07/19/2011
GARCIA, ANGELA ROSE MARIEIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 12/28/2020
GORDON, NISSANIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 07/19/2021

CMS files one row per role, so the 18 rows in the source record cover these 8 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

$53.4M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
+9.9%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$7.3M
Related-party expense15% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 62%Medicare 22%Other / private 15%

This home reported $7.3M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 15% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

$456per resident / day
operating cost
$13,869per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$506per day
avg. revenue, all payers

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in NY

Paying with Medicaid

This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the New York Medicaid page.

Typical monthly cost in New York
$15,528/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$16,729/mo
Nursing home (private)
$7,110/mo
Assisted living

Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.

Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 335561. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-03-21, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →

Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →

Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.

What to do next